Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

phourgenres wrote:I have been fitted in a more upright position, and I feel like I have a lot more power than I did before. So now I pose the opposite question from before. Why go low? Is it just for aerodynamics?

One advantage that I have found besides the extra power (now that my handlebars are higher), is that when I do come out of my saddle to sprint or climb I have more stability, because I no longer have to crouch over when Im pushing hard on my pedals.

I am so confused now...

Thoughts?

The other good reason for going low is to lower your center of gravity which improves bike handling.

phourgenres wrote:I have been fitted in a more upright position, and I feel like I have a lot more power than I did before. So now I pose the opposite question from before. Why go low? Is it just for aerodynamics?

One advantage that I have found besides the extra power (now that my handlebars are higher), is that when I do come out of my saddle to sprint or climb I have more stability, because I no longer have to crouch over when Im pushing hard on my pedals.

I am so confused now...

Thoughts?

The advantage of having a 'long' setup rather than a low setup is that you have more room to sprint and use your upper body. Loads of guys want to have their bars as low as possible to mimic what tall pro riders look like, but have a look at guys like Cancellara and in particular, Cavendish. They have a longer setup allowing them to stretch out rather then rounding their backs to reach down to bars that are lower, but closer.

A while ago I was on the path to have the bars as low as possible, but the lower they went, the short the stem I needed. End result was a rounded back, loss of power and lower back pain.Up came the bars, longer stem went on and now I have a flat back, am just as aero (even though initially it feels too high) and plenty of room to sprint and in that regards, I found the 200W that went missing in my sprint kick.

My point is, you can bring the bars up and get your power back, but by allowing yourself a longer reach, you will give yourself that space to get brutal with the thing.

The advantage of having a 'long' setup rather than a low setup is that you have more room to sprint and use your upper body. Loads of guys want to have their bars as low as possible to mimic what tall pro riders look like, but have a look at guys like Cancellara and in particular, Cavendish. They have a longer setup allowing them to stretch out rather then rounding their backs to reach down to bars that are lower, but closer.

A while ago I was on the path to have the bars as low as possible, but the lower they went, the short the stem I needed. End result was a rounded back, loss of power and lower back pain.Up came the bars, longer stem went on and now I have a flat back, am just as aero (even though initially it feels too high) and plenty of room to sprint and in that regards, I found the 200W that went missing in my sprint kick.

My point is, you can bring the bars up and get your power back, but by allowing yourself a longer reach, you will give yourself that space to get brutal with the thing.

This is exactly what I have talked about before. Getting lower should mean bending into the front end of the bike, and like you have stated, this also allows a large amount of sprinting power to be addressed to the pedals. Your observation of the stem getting shorter as you went lower was to stabilize your upper body.

On the bike, you should be able to use the entire bar and hoods for different situations, and reaching the levers should not be a labor, it should feel natural.

I have heard with the longer setups the riders are doing more pulling than pushing on their handlebars, is this true? How do you determine how "long" to setup a rider? Flexibility, the longest reach without a bend in the back?

KWalker wrote:Pros do not always ride the ideal setup. Unfortunately studies show that you make big gains in flexibility when you begin an optimal stretching routine, but that halts fairly fast. Your anatomy is somewhat your anatomy and there are several pros that ride non-pro positions better than those who do. Its better to win on something wonky then to ride shitty because you want to look cool.

Power development can be more important than an aero position. I switched from a long and low position to a more setback higher position and am able to fully use my legs now and have gained way more power in the legs than I've lost by being less aero.

Actually, no. He is at the most extended length of pedal that he can be at on the bike and still has a bend in his knee. He may be a little low, but not to a point where it would be a detriment. Looks like he is in a good position.

Now this one looks funky, he is taking a corner, so the look is skewed somewhat. I am not as much concerned about his seat as I am about his back. Looks like a rainbow. He could come up and out and get even lower on the bike.

Stijn Devolder seems like a good example of a guy who to gets more upright when producing short-term power, yet gets very aero when on the drops in sustained power mode. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x62Rza92Ew

There are pros/cons and compromises of every setup, plus you are comparing to pros who do this for a living at the top end of the sport. Most of us are not pros and should ride what fits, not what looks cool.

Last edited by ty-ro on Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.